Science vs. Faith

[_Runtu]

"So", how "is" everyone "doing" today "?"

I'm "fine." How are "you"?

[_TrashcanMan79]

Just perused these 7 pages and can't recall seeing a single link to the Tim Minchin bit from which the quote in the OP comes. Totally unsat.

Tim Minchin - Storm (live)

Tim Minchin - Storm (animated)


"You know you get to that point in your life, I think mostly in your early thirties (for men, anyway), where you start to realize that everything you want to say, everything you want to express in your life, can't necessarily be expressed in comedy song? I think it's at this point in your average man's life when he might choose to write a nine minute beat poem.

"This is a nine minute beat poem."

[_Samantabhadra]

Well, what are you claiming then? That there are things about the brain and how it experiences the world that we don't understand yet and that are unique to each individual?

No. That the process of perception (more generally, cognition) may necessarily involve physical or material aspects but that it is not reducible to exclusively physical or material processes.

But what does this have to do with anything related to the notion of whether or not god(s) actually exist?

Please correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand it the primary argument being made here is that spiritual experiences are being discounted as means of reliable knowledge because there is no direct physical object being cognized. But that only works as a critique if cognition is reducible to physical processes. If cognition or perception is not exclusively physical, then not-exclusively-physical objects can be validly cognized.

[_mikwut]

Both sides of this issue have concerning stances not without consequence. I agree with the secularists that fight the entanglement of creationist views in the science classroom, but the manipulative technique many secularists use that pits a naïve competition between science and religion - accentuated by atheists, creates real problems as well. We have a pathetic current production of passion, education and interest in the sciences in this country, a religious country. By teaching a ridiculous competitive notion that divides the two categories a hostile environment and perception towards science is created within the culture. If the atheist is right, and science simply shows self-evidently the folly of religion (outside of its own atheistic psychology) then the manipulative debate foisted by atheists is silly. Rather than denigrating religion - inspire religious adherents to study science and in so doing (since it is self evident) they will see the world the way the atheist does. But that takes real strength of character and real self confidence. Calling someone dumb, not so much. Other atheists see this as well:

The tragedy, again, is that a polarized, competitive view debases both science and religion. Scientific materialists disrespect religion, to be sure, but they also abuse science. And biblical literalists disparage science, to be sure, but they also diminish religion. Ultimately, when devout believers deny the big bang and evolution, this is not religion; it is ignorance. And when militant atheists claim that natural empiricism invalidates spiritual beliefs, this is not science; it is arrogance. Sheiman, Bruce (2009-05-22). An Athiest Defends Religion: Why Humanity is Better Off with Religion Than Without It. (pp. 172-173).

I am continually fascinated that so many on the board cannot recognize where their beliefs are simply not scientific - but psychological.

my best, mikwut

[_Blixa]

I will vote approval of Nightlions post on this matter.

Me too.

[_Panopticon]

What's ironic is that apologists are stuck with the scare quote treatment of common words every day in order to defend the otherwise indefensible. Just look at "translate" as used for whatever it was Joseph Smith did, in conjunction with the Egyptian papyri, to produce the Book of Abraham. The normal, everyday meaning of words isn't good enough to defend Mormonism.

I just heard a mopologist argue that the "skin of blackness" of the Lamanites doesn't relate to their skin color, but rather their spiritual blackness. When you are willing to go that far with the "loose" translation theory, anything goes.

[_beefcalf]

I just heard a mopologist argue that the "skin of blackness" of the Lamanites doesn't relate to their skin color, but rather their spiritual blackness. When you are willing to go that far with the "loose" translation theory, anything goes.

As a practicing Mormon, I frequently heard a similar tactic used in relation to the Ten Commandments. I would be sitting in Elder's Quorum and the topic of 'Thou shalt have no other Gods before me' would often come up. This almost certainly meant something specific to the Hebrew tribes of the fertile crescent, in that they had the choice of a whole panoply of gods to choose from. But today, the interpretation is that God doesn't want us to put the 'God of Work' before him, or the 'God of XBOX360', or the 'God of Vacations'. The 'other gods' clause has been changed to mean anything and everything that might distract you from paying full attention (and a full tithe) to the church.

[_MCB]

Naw, they are related.

Catechism of the Catholic Church #2113
Idolatry not only refers to false pagan worship. It remains a constant temptation to faith. Idolatry
consists in divinizing what is not God. Man commits idolatry whenever he honors and reveres a creature in
place of God, whether this be gods or demons (for example, Satanism), power, pleasure, race, ancestors, the
state, money, etc. Jesus says, “You cannot serve God and mammon.” Many martyrs died for not adoring “the
Beast” refusing even to simulate such worship. Idolatry rejects the unique Lordship of God; it is therefore
incompatible with communion with God.

[_beefcalf]

MCB: Do you have a date for when this was written?

I will, in any case, accede the point that this view is not held solely by Latter-Day Saints.

[_MCB]

It is recent, but is not radical revision from past doctrine.